SAUNTI JENA Vs. SACHIDANANDA PATNAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the Appellant against a reversing judgment. Plaintiffs case is that they took lease of 21 acres of Anabadi land appertaining to Khata No. 339 of village Apanda from the then zamindar Samanta Radha Prasanna Das. Plaintiffs, in their turn, leased out 7 acres out of 24 acres of land on bhag to the Defendant under ext. 4 dated 12 -2 -1952. There was a stipulation that the Defendant would reclaim the land on payment of Rs. 25/ - per acre as reclamation costs by the Plaintiffs, that the land should be reclaimed in course of 2 years and after reclamation bhag was payable by the Defendant. For 1360 V.S. Corresponding 10 The Year 1953 Plaintiffs claimed bhag of Rs. 369/ -.

(2.) THE Defendant contested the suit asserting that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and himself. He advanced a story that he himself took lease of this land from Samanta Radha Prassanna Das.

(3.) THE finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is a pure finding of fact and cannot be assailed in second appeal. It is not clear whether the Rent Suit Officer,. Bhadrak, had power to determine application under the O.T.P. Act. In the absence of the controversy raised by the Defendant challenging the jurisdiction of the Rent Suit Officer, Bhadrak, it cannot be said that he had no such powers. This judgment accordingly proceeds on the footing that the Rent Suit Officer, Bhadrak, in disposing of the case exercised powers under the provisions of the O.T.P. Act.